Kelly Slater and the Angriest Summer
Last weekend Kelly Slater, the most famous surfer in the world, posted to his 2.6 million Instagram followers a horrific image of one of the 480 million animals that have perished in the worst bushfires in Australian history, along with the words:
“I’m not sure a picture could better sum up the fear and devastation more succinctly. I’m no expert but from the messages and reading I’ve done on the subject, mismanagement of forest underbrush back-burning in the winter months and overall water resources have helped create a perfect storm in the face of this drought.”
I don’t know the provenance of the heart-wrenching photo of a juvenile kangaroo trapped on a fence while trying to escape the fires, other than it was published last week in News Limited media, but I do know a little of Kelly, and that his intentions in spreading awareness of our country’s horror would have been noble. (In fact he posted links to fundraising pages.)
But unfortunately his scattergun midnight Google research, revealing that mismanagement of “back-burning” was the main culprit, put him squarely (if unwittingly) in the camp of the fossil fuel corporations and the climate change deniers. Like the GOAT said, “I’m no expert…” But perhaps he may have been better informed if he’d included in his reading Australian Nerilie Abram’s report, Australia’s Angry Summer: This Is What Climate Change Looks Like, published on New Year’s Eve in the online edition of Scientific American.
Abram began: “Of course, unusually hot summers have happened in the past; so have bad bushfire seasons. But the link between the current extremes and anthropogenic climate change is scientifically undisputable.”
Spelling out the size of the dilemma for her American readership, she continued: “The fires raging across the southern half of the Australian continent this year have so far burned through more than five million hectares. To put that in context, the catastrophic 2018 fire season in California saw nearly 740,000 hectares burned.”
While this should not be a time for political point-scoring, I thought Abram’s conclusion was the most succinct summary of this horrific situation that I have read thus far: “The angry summer playing out in Australia right now was predictable. The scientific evidence is well known for how anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing long-term climate change and altering climate variability in ways that increase our fire risk. The role of climate change in the unprecedented fires gripping Australia is also well understood by our emergency services. Sadly, though, this summer has occurred against a backdrop in which the Australian government has argued, on the world stage, to scale back our greenhouse-gas-emissions-reduction targets. Our leaders are literally fiddling while the country burns.”
Meanwhile, as Australia’s East Coast burned last weekend, Kelly’s Insta post played out to middling reviews.
'Be Noble' responded: “Please don’t spread this misinformation. There’s only one reason this is the worst fire season ever - warming, drying climate.”
'Lewis Bassett' was even more brutal: “Didn’t you read about climate change bro, or d’you feel too guilty about constantly flying around the world to go there?”
Ouch.
But the one comment that brought tears to my eyes was from Mark Rabbidge, a surfer/shaper who has toiled valiantly and with great integrity in the trenches of the surfboard industry for as long as I can remember. Mark brought it all down to what is real at ground zero with these words from the front, clearly pumped into his phone with angry, ash-covered fingers: “I’ve been stuck at my surfboard shop at Bendalong for 6 days fighting this fire it’s come at us from all points of the compass yesterday was real bad felt like the end of the world we saved everything I’m over it”
Like all of former world champion Pam Burridge’s friends and followers, I’d been biting my nails as Pam posted updates daily over the New Year period on her frantic efforts to first get supplies to husband Mark at Bendalong, then just to contact him to know he was alive, as fires raged around the Conjola area, claiming nearly 100 homes. Thankfully it was a happy ending for the Rabbidge/Burridge family. For so many others it was not.
For me, safe in Noosa (although this long bushfire season that hasn’t always been the case) and watching the red flame icons on the TV maps, concerned about friends and family still in that part of the world, every image of an Armageddon sky brought back vivid memories of so many happy times in places now on fire. So many weekends surfing Green Island, just down the hill from where Mark Rabs and friends were holding back the flames; surfing alone at sunset near Mallacoota, not far from where 4,000 frightened people huddled on the beach waiting for rescue.
It’s almost impossible to reconcile those memories with the images on the TV news, but we must, because sadly we are going to see a lot more of them.
//PHIL JARRATT
Comments
Fascinating information from Dr Tom Fairman, a Forest Scientist (with a link to the paper).
"We assume eucalypts to be very tolerant to being burned once every couple of decades - but what about if they get burned a couple of times in a decade?
The key finding in a tweet - more frequent fire lowers the likelihood of basal and epicormic resprouting across all tree sizes, which surprisingly makes intermediate sized trees most vulnerable to resprout failure.
We also found that more frequent fire increased the size of stems likely to be ‘topkilled’ - that is, the trees stem dying. In other words - trees that would otherwise survive one fire don’t necessarily survive two.
So in conclusion: scenes like this make us think that our eucalypt forests are great at bouncing back from high severity fire. But more frequent fire may begin to test that tolerance."
Incredible.
I live in the small coastal town of Anglesea on the Surfcoast Vic near Bells where we experienced the horrific Ash Wednesday bushfires in 1983. At this time fire reduction burns were regular and substantial here along the Great Ocean Road and hinterland bush. These preventative burns had little or no effect on the spread and speed of the massive Ash Wednesday fire following a three year drought, howling hot dry winds and tinder dry forests. From the similar images I have seen on tv I doubt whether there would have been any effect on these current fires if more fuel reduction burns had been done. In fact back in the 'old days' a number of controlled burns got way out of control and resulted in being the cause of major fires at the time or later from flare ups. Currently here a new state department, Fire Management Vic. have a policy of more frequent smaller burns to prevent this happening and to have a lower impact on wildlife and the environment. It is clear that they struggle to find suitable low risk days to do this and still meet their required % area burn targets. Because of this there are days when due to an incorrect weather forecast or calculated risk going wrong there are serious consequences. Towns can get smoked out for weeks causing health concerns, ( I was a victim of this suffering smoke inhalation resulting in a heart condition requiring surgery.) Also, seemingly endless days of smoke affects businesses that rely on tourist dollars due to people leaving the area. Then of course there is the environmental damage and air pollution. I am against burning to protect human property and to me strategic defensive cleared areas would be more successful. Many of the recent fires were started by humans, if I hear correctly, over 160 arrests have been made and for sure lightning was also a cause. Climate change may be a contributor but I doubt it, the coastline and the world has always changed and there has always been extreme natural events and weather and this is of of them. So to me Kelly's comment was well intended but not correct, but I respect his right to have his say. All the best to those that have been affected you can get through this.
According to the Victorian Premier, The Fire Commissioner and a statement today from VicPol, none of the fires in Victoria were caused by arson. But according to what you "have heard" they were. Herein lies the problem.
Hey adam12 .. when I was referring to the 160 charged with arson it was a national figure and my article clearly wasn't just focused on Vic. Some recent fires have been suspicious in Vic though but really that is not the point which is that its not all down to climate change and lack of fuel reduction burns. Thanks for reading what I had to say.
I'm confused. doesn't Kelly has ownership in a company that is about sustainable living and reducing our impact on the environment?
Indeed he does, and should be commended for it.
Another interesting Twitter thread, this time from James Camac, a Research Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis.
A couple of key points:
"The reality is climate change via increases in drought and extreme fire events, is almost certainly going to increase the number and severity of landscape fires in our alpine environments.
My own scientific work (https://bit.ly/35x99WJ) suggests that this will be exacerbated in the alpine treeless zone via a positive feedback between climate, alpine shrubs and fire.
Warmer temperatures are expected to double shrub growth rates, thereby increase fuel loads allowing for more frequent and severe fires. These fires provide the opportunity for shrubs to invade less flammable communities (grasslands) & thereby make them more flammable".
He obviously doe know what he’s talking about , Ben. You only have to read the many comments on here describing how fuel loads have no effect on fire intensity and severity .....and now he’s saying that it also contributes to frequency.
Overall.....he basically agrees with Kelly.
Climate denier !!!!!!!
I’ve had many people on these threads remind me that the basis for those beliefs is unscientific. Yet here we have ANOTHER scientist claiming that it’s true. Maybe he’s really from the social sciences ?
From the Centre for Excellence. In what ....Climate Denial ? Burn him at the stake .
Get him Innatube .....throw the full might of your stupidity at him .
My stupidity is only surpassed by your ego buddy.
How about I do you a favour ?
We can both pretend that I didn’t read that comment and I’ll just slip away for a while, whilst you rephrase it in a way that doesn’t make you out to be the bluntest tool in the shed.
Sound fair ?
Fuel loads obviously play a part in fires but many if not most of the fire stricken areas have already had a controlled burn through them just after winter. A guy I know who has attended a lot of the fires in Queensland says that most of the ones he attended have started from control burns that were done months ago and have been slowly smouldering away in the root systems. Because of the absence of rain during spring they have flared up again and because of the unusually (historically) hot dry windy conditions they have been incredibly hard to control. It looks like the 2 at Peregian were arson and the one at Noosa was a campfire not extinguished properly that burnt through the national park for weeks.
My final fire / climate change comment .....just for you , Innatube.
You say that many , if not most of the fire stricken areas had hazard reduction burns previously....
In 2019 it is claimed that there was roughly 400,000 acres of HRB area .
The fire crisis were over an area of 12,500,000 acres.
Do you still believe that many , if not most of the area was pre- burnt ?
BTW ....yep , fire reduction burns are dodgy AF. I just want the nicely charred undergrowth without the risk of runaway fire with the local RFS legends as unwitting arsonists. Is that too much to ask ?
So you want to pre burn 12 500 000 acres to be on the safe side?
Doing something about climate change might be easier, if it's not already too late.
There not mutually exclusive, we can chew gum and walk and we actually are in both circumstances.
But in regard to fires it would actually be easier to focus more on preventative measures, because with or without climate change, we will always have fires and the risk of fires will always increases as population grows.
Dealing with climate change for us is the hardest because our 1.3% emissions even if magical became zero wouldn't make any difference to climate or fire risk..
Here's the best analogy I've seen of the 1.3% argument. The funniest shit usually isn't funny at all ...
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/drug-dealer-who-sells-to-30-…
Drugs are an interesting thing to compare coal too, because it is like thinking if you stop one dealer or suppler of drugs you will stop the cycle of use.
Just like drugs coal doesn't work that way, we stop selling doesn't mean they don't stop using it just means they go elsewhere,
And as we know and even both Scomo and Albanesse agree, if we did stop selling coal the coal that places like India and China are left to source would be lower quality coal (like Indonesian coal), meaning more needs to be burnt to get the same amount of energy meaning higher world emissions, meaning faster rate of global warming.
this way of thinking and acting is why we are fucked. no vision, no imagination, no leadership. regardless, the 1.3% argument is bullshit
What point would it be stopping coal exports when it would only see global emissions increase and would also have a drastic negative effect on our economy and on everyones life?
That would be very poor leadership, and one no Liberal or Labor PM would make.
Besides the ethical issue - which is the biggest issue for me, though not for some - there are future trade agreements, such as that with the EU, which is contingent upon us upholding the Paris Agreement and any further co-operative deal.
A coming suite of lawsuits, though a long way off, is something to think about also. Will MNC's commit to long term projects if the risk of future litigation is too great? If they pull out midway, who's left wearing the costs?
the argument that we contribute 1.3% emissions is bullshit. we have the capacity to contribute far far less, to redesign our generation of power, and to lead the world in renewables exports, which would give us influence (via an economically successful response) and provide alternative, cheaper options than coal. you say it’s not possible and people will just keep buying coal. result is the status quo and more extreme weather events, and weather-related events like bushfires. i say it is possible and developing cheaper, more efficient production of energy and then exporting it will be a more attractive product than coal. the result will be a reduction in emissions and a chance to reduce the degree of global warming and the associated impacts like bushfires. those are different visions, different choices for leaders to make. i don’t expect you or the libs/nats to change your minds. and that, as i said above, is why we are fucked. regardless, pedalling the 1.3% argument (where we started in this little thread) is complete bullshit
FFS completely dreaming if you think we can replace our biggest export market with exporting renewables energy. (not to mention other fossil fuels are in our top ten exports)
Can you give me one good reason why none of these countries you want to export too will not just heavily invest in renewables themselves?
Imagine how risky it would be to invest billions hoping a country is going buy renewable energy from you and then they turn around and go elsewhere or just invest heavily themselves.
The only exception is Singapore it has little land and it's economy works at a similar level to ours (power prices etc) but even then unless it was a Singapore company there would be zero security, what would stop Indonesia or Malaysia supplying them renewable energy at a cheaper price? (with much less energy loss as shorter distance)
In the future we might buy and sell renewable energy with neighbours etc but its more likely we will import more energy than export as more likely their prices will be cheaper just like everything else in SE Asia. (just because its from Sun or Wind doesn't matter, there is a bigger picture than that, minerals are different because of quality and accessibility affects price and are limited resources, unlike sun and wind that everyone has)
BTW. If you didn't know retail energy prices in places like Indonesia are far far cheaper than Australia, so you would expect Australian renewable energy providers would always want to sell to us first and then only sell elsewhere if was excess energy and renewable energy providers in places like Indonesia more likely to want to sell to us because more likely to get better price than they would locally)
Anyway im done on this thread.
yeah - no chance of u considering anything but the status quo. can’t be arsed to point out the flaws in your arguments because it’s a complete waste of time. just do everyone a bit of a favour and quit pedalling the 1.3% lie perhaps?
Oh come on point out the so called flaws.
How are you going to ensure that security needed to prevent other countries doing the same?...how are you going to prevent other countries under cutting us?
We don't have any advantages other than space and low corruption levels, but may of the countries also have space especially if they cut down forrest to make room.
Australia is a resource rich country and our economy will always be based on resources, it's the only area of advantage we have, every other area we have a huge disadvantages of having some of the highest wages in the world and some of the highest operating cost, expensive land, rent, energy prices, water prices, rates, disposal cost, super, workers rights etc and all kinds of regulation and red tape.
Yeah I can see that indo. It just seems like they've taken a lot of preventative measures with hazard reduction etc this year and we're in more shit that ever. It seems like we're all doing our best, even blowin haha, but governments around the world, especially Australia should be leading the way , and they're letting us down. That's where the problem really lies.
The government seems to be saying it's only 1.3% so why try . Who knows if it will make a difference unless you try
The best analogy I've heard is, it's like coming across an overturned car with someone trapped underneath, and there's 6 people trying to lift it. Do you drive off and say well if 6 can't do it it's no use me helping?
Fuck me this thread is chaos ... Let's change the conversation .. If you could sit down on the piss with 5 to 10 people for a weekend and talk about ways to fix climate change and said 5 to 10 people would actually have a chance to get their voices heard about your opinion on a world stage. Who would be on your list and whould anyone amongst you would have something useful to say to said people ..... smelly skater would be on my list as would many other unexpected people
he'd be the last person I'd have on a list to talk about climate change.
Haha , yep you've got to wonder.
Why he's world famous and seen it happen intimately .. what bloke in the world has watched the weather over time with interest more than smelly he is who he is
I'd bring him to a dinner party to talk about banging super models.
What the free ride .. here is a classic example of human stupidity .. why is it when I go to a car dealership I have to buy a car that has an engine that is a 120 year old design no matter what tech the car has to stop me crashing it .. cars have improved but at the heart of it the engine still basically remains unchanged for 120 years an inefficient piece of shit .. why? What other piece of human technology has remained stagnant for that long? Who decided this shit? There is enough energy in 60 litres of fuel to make a car go at least 5000 km ... We need people in the spotlight to bring this sort of fuck up to light
go buy a Prius .
Hahaha ... Have a good think about it mate
Would you accept a Motorola brick as you current mobile phone .. the modern car / suv is not even close to the brick
I reckon the first cars probably drove like a "brick", now not so much the case. I think you will find that mobile phones send messages via radio waves (no mass apparently, but probably a tiny bit), passing through the air fast and efficiently. Now a car is bogged down by gravity to a road, tyres, friction, heavy weight, friction in the drivetrain, limitations with burning temp etc, all reduce the cars "efficiency" to well under half the energy in the fuel … throw the same car into space, and it will probably never stop. Or maybe you are eluding to the fossil fuel industry intentionally directing vehicles to be inefficient in order to support demand of their products. If we were to go all electric cars, what surface would we run them on given the majority of major roads are bitumen, there are some sections of some highways in concrete, but then those "materials" need to be mined, by trucks, and excavators, and dozers etc. which will probably operate on fossil fuels. To reduce emissions significantly will, as mentioned by some, require major lifestyle changes, and policy on domestic energy production. It appears about a third of our Co2 emissions come from power production, and 55% from acquiring/storing/burning fossil fuels for transport, manufacturing, mining, commercial etc. Anyone with modern day products/appliances is supporting the manufacturing/mining industry, as those materials just don't grow on trees, the amount of cars cruising around this country is astonishing, I very much doubt car numbers will go down (not with population increase, once again previously mentioned as a major contributor to climate change), sure types may change, and they have been talking about making "battery" storage cheaper for decades, and they are still a long way off. There is a good mix of views on this forum, and given most are probably surfers, whom typically tend to be down to earth, I wonder how we stack up as a "representative sample" of our nations feelings on the "climate change" consensus. My guess is the classic bell curve. where a few percent lie at one end, a few percent at the other end, and the far majority in the middle just not giving a crap about much on the subject, too busy going about daily life. As for the subject matter, December 10th, Eurobodalla Shire minutes of ordinary council meeting show a motion was raised to write a letter to the Premier, various ministries, RFS etc "Seeking an urgent review of the current bushfire fuel reduction protocols and planning practices …." 3 councilors favoured the motion, 5 did not, motion was lost. Motion was amended, again lost however on a minority against, motion was amended again, with only one councillor against the motion, it was finally carried through. Seems like Dec 10th may have been way to late anyway.
Hazard reduction is a new age greenie term, has always been called back burning for before and after a fire.
From The Conversation in 2014:
The difference between fuel-reduction burning and back burning is effectively the same as the difference between elective and emergency surgery.
Fuel reduction (also known variously as prescribed, planned, controlled or hazard-reduction burning) is the targeted burning of bushland to control fire behaviour.
The idea is to reduce the intensity of subsequent fires at the same place by removing fine surface fuels such as leaf litter. Reducing these hazards increases the window of opportunity for fire fighters to control bushfires.
Back burning is a last-resort measure to stop wildfire from burning out specific areas. It works by setting fires from containment lines, such as established fire breaks or hastily contrasted ones made with a bulldozer or cut by hand.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-back-burning-and-fuel-reduction-20…
Thanks Ben,
I generally enjoy reading the Conversation and know of the author, but i think he has got a few things wrong here.
Firstly the term 'backburning' is a common term used across OZ to create planned burns that slowly move back in to the wind, creating slow moving 'backing' fires that are less intense and potential impact and avoid wind driven intense 'head'fires. this includes right through Northern Australia where Dr.Bowman used to work at CDU.
Tactical backburning in bushfire situations are done as a last resort either when a wind driven bushfire is about to break containment lines or damage an asset OR it is a fire lit from a containment line or asset well in advance of a potential bushfire impact often at night under cooler conditions...In both cases it is usually a case of how intense a fire is going to impact an area and NOT a choice between fire or no fire. So the ecological impacts are inevitable in all situations and in most cases tactical backburning will save animals from fire impacting a bigger area and also reduce the intensity within containment lines and less trees getting cooked..Tactical backburning can also create wind driven fires that are more intense than the actual bushfires, but this is usually from lack of experience or resources than good planning and still usually ends up preventing other areas(and animals) getting burnt when containment lines hold..There are plenty of academics that are out of touch with realities of fire management in either protected areas or other tenure..I've posted this link a few times here but this webinar is the way forward from Dr.Neil Burrows - probably the most experienced fire manager/reseracher in oz - in these crazy climate change driven times..
Unreal, great info - thanks!
Why is it that, when an idea comes up or a phrase or terminology that someone hasn't heard of previously, its always a new leftie greenie made up term?
Fuel reduction in bush .. this link is a good watch not sure if it's already been shared as I have not read every comment
.. earth on fire
What about the twenty second century?
What about the twenty third?
Who should pay for our lifestyle?
Who’s going to have family then?
Who gives a fuck?
Rich74, whats your opinion on the current weather conditions surely this is a new paradigm requiring a whole lot of new thinking in regards not just to fire control, fuel loads, containment strategies, where people build and the standards to resist fire / ember attacks and much much more.
Most of the comments here are about dong things that are applicable in a so called "normal" bush fire season.
Despite Blowins objections this is unprecedented over 2000 homes lost across a massive area long way from normal.
This to me is just a preview of the future I suspect the future will be far worse.
My own thoughts (without being a doomsday-ist....maybe I am) are I don't think its controllable, its outside our control well and truly.
I focus..yep, the unprecedented fire behaviour is pretty disturbing at the moment..and i've had too many fire whirls (tornadoes) of late on the job for my liking and stress levels..however there is still a lot of good fire work going on around the country that doesnt get the media headlines, and plenty of examples recently in NSW and QLD and across the country where fires have been contained and big areas saved..Usually through a combination of prescribed burning in cooler months and fire fighting when bushfires start..its really a question of resourcing and making the most of tight windows when it is safe to do prescribed burning and stretching those windows through more staff and resources including aircraft..treat it like an emergency before its an emergency and we will save big $$ in public and private funds firefighting..Prescribed burning is not the only answer or always the solution as every vegetation type and location needs a tailor made set of solutions. It needs a whole of community approach to coexisiting with increasing bushfire threat..including better resourcing,fire preparedness and building standards and maintenance and taking the politics out of it...But who knows by 2100 we might not have a 'winter' or cool time to burn the way climate change is going..In northern Australia we often do planned burns just after the rain or in light rain because its bloody hot(and usually dry) all the time
this article kind of sums it up from my opinion
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pour-more-money-into-the-most-effective…
Then there is the wild life / environmental systems struth thats before you get to rain forest burning that wont regenerate.
not sure what you mean here as bushfires seem to be doing most of the ecological damage of late including in rainforests. Prescribed burning should have the objective of reducing the severity and impact of bushfire on all assets including ecological values and threatened species. It just really depends on the values that each landholder or land manager wants to protect. Here is a good example of Aboriginal rangers using fire to successfully protect rainforest and other ecological values in high rainfall savanna where there is an annual threat of large,severe bushfires every year due to climate
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/6/4/68
Here is an example of what Rich74 was talking about further up the page.
The Oxygen farm, 1000 acres of wet sclerophyll forest bought by a group of people back in 93.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-10/oxygen-farm-helped-save-village-…
Genuine question
Why is it that the Black Saturday fires in Victoria were not deemed a climate emergency to the level that these NSW bushfires have been?
Stats for Black Saturday: 173 fatalities, +400 individual fires recorded, 3500 structures destroyed.
It's only been 10 years and climate science/studies views haven't changed much in that period, I mean they knew change was happening 20 years ago, so why no big fuss about climate change in 2009?
A genuine question? From someone who said "So we don't have a fire problem, we have an arson problem and it's time something was done about it.".
Right. Lol.
The stats you list are poor metrics for assessing climate change. Maybe the Black Saturday fires went through a dense area (people, buildings).
How about this? Black Saturday: 4,500 km2 burnt. 2019-2020 season so far: 105,000 km2 burnt. and counting.
Nope, no fire problem there.
How good is denial?
What's wrong with wanting to reduce arson and the human causes of fire?
If you had a crime problem in your area with burglary's, cars were being stolen, bashings you'd would want to stop that from occurring wouldn't you?
Hey crew, reading some of the comments here about 'hazzard reduction' and thought you'd all like to here from the man in charge about what is actually happening on the ground:
"Hazard reduction burns that are only two years old, we're seeing these fires on these bad days just skip straight through it," he said.
"We're only seeing effective amelioration on fire spread through hazard reduction areas that have been done so in the last 12 months."
That's from NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons, and taken from this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/nsw-fires-rfs-commissioner-weigh…
Hi Wingnut, not sure what your point is here about hazard reduction. There is a lot of different fire weather and fire danger through the day and the last weeks and months in South east Australia are an example of that. Thankfully most of it isn't "bad" days as Fitzsimmons correctly terms it. This is usually referring to hot dry windy weather from the north (originating in Central Australian deserts) but these seem to be happening about 1-2 days a week of late in South eastern Australia, before southerly changes or weather changes bring more humid weather eventually and reduce fire danger and fire behaviour for a few days. So for at least 5 days in most weeks in many places, fire crews have the opportunity (particularly at night when conditions are cooler) to strengthen containment lines and back burn. Areas that have been subject to hazard reduction including in the last 12 months or sometimes longer provide an oppportunity for fire crews to establish containment lines. If they have to deal with heavy fuel loads to establish it becomes very difficult and they often lose those containment lines from flare ups and spot overs when the 'bad' days come around again. Without hazard reduction fire fighters don't stand a chance in forested areas in bushfires, except to save the odd house that has been prepared for bushfire, which many aren't.
At risk of censure, I'd encourage everyone to have a read of the information at these two locations:
https://abruptearthchanges.com/2017/07/30/climate-change/
https://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
Yes, it's heavy reading, and yes it takes time. But I challenge everyone to ask themselves "Do I really understand the climate change issue?"
IMHO from the hours of knowledge gathering I've invested, we're influenced by that big hot thing in the sky way more than we've ever been educated, explained, taught, discussed.
Do your own reading, research and knowledge gathering! Those two links above will give you a good starting point.
all due respect Wingnut but that is some of the shonkiest conspiracy, denial BS I've ever seen.
It's probably a really bad idea to do your own reading, research and knowledge gathering if you cannot discern quality peer reviewed information from internet garbage.
OK, then on just this:
"The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments."
Fact or Fiction?
Hi wingnut
I suggest you read Naomi Orekes' Merchants of Doubt (2012). You really do need to understand who is pulling your strings.
Then , read The Garnaut Report. Its decade-old, frighteningly accurate scientific predictions foretelling the current disaster will put stains in ya jocks .
I have to actually agree with Free ride, i have a degree of skepticism on how things are presented by media and politicians etc IMHO much misleading and overcooked but that is completely next level.
Lucky this thread is almost dead or those lefties would rip you to shreds.
Why is it 'next level'?
Serious, genuine question. I am curious as to how you filter information and have arrived at that conclusion.
It's hard to take in everything in the links but just to quote one bit from the conclusion:
"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions."
My view on the whole climate change thing is that, man is highly likely increasing warming and it does look like C02 is the main reason, however im open to the possibility that in the future they might also find other aspects that are also influencing warming. (some people are just not even open to this)
I also don't believe it is all negative, all change has positives and negatives and also believe that media and politics etc is misusing and abusing the issue and there is a high level of scare mongering, it becomes really hard to know what to believe from mainstream media etc.
But even with that view (which some think makes me a climate denier), i still support reduction in C20 or green house gases, i mean even if we end up finding out C02 isn't causing warming or isn't as big factor, its still not going to hurt getting rid of it and renewables are still a good way to produce energy.
Im not against alternative view points or theories but to go that next step and say that you are certainly not wrong and there is no need to stop C02 emissions for me is "next level" and a step way too far.
But still i respect your right to your view.
Funny how no-one here has any real suggestions about solving 'the problem'. Probably the same tools who are at the protests calling for Scomo's head cause he started the fires.
Most here don't have your genus Rex so what do you expect?
And clearly Smoko deserves a holiday in the middle of a national emergency (just shows we don't need the fu(kwit anyway) and I recon the best thing he has done so far is make and release a Liberal ad to help cheer us all up did wonders for me I had no idea there was a fire emergency.
Just ignore him D-Rex, I focus is too thick to even understand that states oversea fire emergency's and all the authorities that deal with them not the government.
BTW.Notice how he mentions the PM going on holidays but no mention of Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s going on holidays when her state was burning or NSW NSW Emergency Services Minister David Elliott David Elliott on Holidays in Europe while his state was a blaze.
Actual people who were far more directly involved with the whole situation because they are responsible for all the state run departments under them (including funding)
Deafening silence re my request for real solutions - hmm. Far easier to blame CC 'inaction' methinks.
Hmmm plenty of people have thrown up possible solutions some that are at the fire front
I don't think you can do too much other than increase funding and fire preparation service and fire control services, and all the things we normal do just a lot more.
If you are going to go off historic records, it will either be a one off event or a two to three year event before going back to a more traditional pattern. (even if slightly wetter or drier)
If you want to talk about climate change or renewables IMHO the smartest thing the government can do is say any direct profit from royalties from future Galien basin mines goes into funding renewables or similar programs.
Once one off subsidies/funding is paid back this would be billions in royalties, but still give extra income in tax and payroll tax, plus extra flow on of money into the local economy...so still a win financially.
This would mean by opposing these projects people would be opposing huge extra finding to renewables/climate change.
Then next election voters in North QLD etc would be happy as get jobs and money into their economy and the left should also be happy as get much more direct action on climate change. (but don't bet on them ever being happy)
IMHO any party that takes that to an election will win.
I hate to agree with you in public Indo, but that thought did cross my mind as well.
Soon as last election happened, I realised the shit was probably going to get dug out of the ground and burnt.
Might as well take as big a chunk of the profit as we can and invest it in renewables and biodiversity funding.
Thanks for that character reference ID I note (really thickly) you concocted an excuse and diversion in one and you dodged the abysmal behaviour (unprecedented Blowin?) from our savoir Smokco.
That Liberal ad BTW was only for information and can in no way be interpreted in any other way just ask any quite Australians.
Solutions
Investment in our own fleet of water bombers
Investment in highly trained rapid response teams
Embark on a massive scale regeneration of our farm land embracing the techniques of Peter Andrews
Get rid of work for the dole and replace it with a two year opportunity to be in a green army to provide workforce and pay them properly.
Look at large scale planting of living firebreaks of high moisture content plants and trees
Where appropriate bring back indigenous land management practices
Most of all stop the lies
We have tide wind solar geo thermal energy
Systems are being developed to capture and store energy not through batteries.
Pumping water to a higher point during the day, heating water during the day
Many systems coming to ensure renewables can supply base load.
You can build 100 strong fleet of water bombers, rake every leaf in every forest and train every one us to be a gun firefighter but 3 degrees of warming will prove it all useless . You can plant a billion trees but you can't water them.
I regret to inform you that in Qld and NSW the bulk of our remaining water resources are now the unfettered property of Adani and Fossil Fuel Inc.
Meanwhile Morrison dreams of the rapture and laughs at us as we squabble over leaf litter.
Time to glue your arse to the road and raise peaceful hell. Imagine a peaceful ' mum's and dad's' mass arrest on the streets of Bris !! When Annastacia 'Adani' Palaszczuk's jails are filled with 'we the people' she will walk away in shame.
WE know the system will fix nothing. WE have to do what we have to do .
Love your positivity though :-)
Some good ideas Indo and GreenCT.
Things that could actually make a difference.
Also high risk areas nead real fire breaks placed in strategic geographic areas, calling a clearing that is 50 metres wide a fire break seems crazy, i know embers etc in real bad conditions can travel even kilometres but there still must be some advantage to having a decent fire break even 1km wide.
Some high risk towns could even do with a series of ring road type fire breaks, that not only help to some degree but would also provide better access for authority's.
Obviously things like this are probably just not realistic cost wise though.
Personally i love the bush and like most would love to live near it, but it does my head in that people live so close to the bush and don't even have quality fire bunkers just incase seems real high risk, especially in areas where fires could easily trap you..
Some of these places its not a matter of if there is a fire, its more a matter of when or how often.
Regenerative agriculture
What confuses me is vegetation once you start with pioneer plants that require little water and then naturally secondary species start to be able to survive because it creates micro climates.
Planting vegetation ultimately brings more rain. Clear examples now here and overseas
So poses the question on a local scale (Australia), has the broadscale clearing for agricultural land contributed to reduced rainfall?
Less trees, less atmospheric moisture, less rain.
In WA you could draw a line from Kalbarri to Cape Arid east of Esperance, apart from the south west forests it's all been cleared.
The question is how many degrees of warming will it take to inhibit the biological processes of revegetation or the emergence of a micro climate.
Does not a micro climate depend on a stable overall climate?
You probably have the horse before the cart but thanks for the link.
The more we learn about natural balance:
.
Trophic cascades......wow.
Makes me wonder whether climate scientists are able to make a connection between the recent Brazilian rainforest fires, an example of degenerative agriculture(less moisture pumped into the atmosphere) and the current dryness of the Australian continent.
Was it a tipping point.
Just watched "Bushfires - Inside the Inferno" on SBS on demand. Covers pretty much every topic that has been raised here plus some.
Information from scientists studying how fires start, fire fighters, ways of fighting the fires and reality of fires in Australia, even the hot topic of back burning. Packed in a lot of information.
Was made in 2014 and apparently fires started by self combusting manure wasn't an issue worth mentioning back then as it seems to be now. All the other causes mentioned though.
Sir Abacus
That's a hard one because it's a little bit like sliding down slope getting more out of control and some would say heading towards a cliff.
Got to try and stop the slide.
With such little moisture content in some places we need to look for cover crops and colonising plants to start the regeneration process.
The property in that video was a degraded bare cattle farm 40 years ago now has it's own micro climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/10/greta-thunberg-da…
Now I am completely baffled if this is a reflection of their position.
Change has to rapid but billions of peoples lives revolve around putting some fuel, their moto, or simple farm machine.
This condemns billions of people who exist within the systems we have created.
World wide shift to renewable energy is a start and it is happening despite the muppet politicians.
Cheap electric moto bikes taxis public transport etc to tackle another part.
But how do we get consensus with a demand like this ?
I have to say that I’m a bit disappointed in the political bias shown in this thread by the Swellnet operators. Normally you guys just offer information and let us plebs comment.
Hand land management back to the first Australians, they know how it needs to be done. Driving around the South Coast of WA last few weeks was an eye opener. The undergrowth in the region looks very dangerous!
Onya Green ct, solutions not problems